American Workers Owe the Labor Movement
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
February 21 – 28, 2009
Americans today are indebted to the labor movement of the United States of America. The American labor movement has transformed work life for all people—whether union members or not. How much money workers make; how many hours are worked; under what conditions; and whether collective bargaining is a part of the process is directly attributable to the struggle for workers’ rights. In particular, if not for the American labor movement, there would be no 8-hour workday; no weekend; no protections against child labor, and no protections against unsafe working conditions.
Prior to the modern American labor movement in the United States workers—both Black and White—were exploited for their labor. Whether the enslavement of Africans or exploitation of European workers the nation’s economy has rested on the backs of working people.
There are several meaningful events that impacted the effectiveness of American workers against management. In 1676, an Englishman named Nathaniel Bacon was upset with Virginia Governor Berkeley who denied Bacon a commission. Bacon organized African and European servants in Surry, Virginia to protest the power of the Governor and it became known as Bacon’s Rebellion. The union of Black and White workers sped up the institution of racial slavery in America.
In 1677, the state of New York prosecuted striking workers for the first time within the colonies. In 1773, Boston dockworkers rebelled against unfair taxes imposed by the British government while throwing tea into the Boston Harbor. The event became known as the Boston Tea Party (a far cry from today’s right-wing Tea Party.) In 1786, printers in Philadelphia organized against low wages. Five years late in 1791 Philadelphia carpenters successfully organized against the 10-hour workday.
However, two events in labor history became precedent-setting legal cases that would shape labor relations today. On May 1, 1866, 340,000 workers (65,000 in Chicago) protested across the United States for an 8-hour workday. On May 3, police killed 4 protestors. And a day later, 3,000 workers gathered in Chicago’s Haymarket Square where a deadly riot issued. The result was a giant step towards the 8-hour workday for all Americans now enjoy as a law.
In 1873, independent meat butchers in New Orleans, LA regularly dumped their discarded meat into the rivers and bayous surrounding New Orleans. The state responded with sanitation statutes outlawing the dumping by using the newly constituted 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Since its ratification in 1868, the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect the due process of former African American slaves, had not been challenged by a direct claim. In the Slaughter-House cases not only were workers ruled against, but the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th fell into disuse until the 1950’s when challenged and upheld in the Brown v. Board case.
There has been little major legislation to benefit workers since the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Accordingly, workers in unions have decreased. In the 1950’s, 55% of American workers were in a private union. Today, the percentage of privately unionized workers is 7%, due to manufacturing jobs being exported to cheaper labor markets abroad. However, 39% of public workers belong to a union.
The legislative answer may be the Employee Free Choice Act. The proposed legislation would allow American workers to unionize by a majority of workers without a secret ballot election. The bill would force outside mediation if an agreement between workers and management were not reached in several months.
As the Obama Administration and Congress consider a Jobs Bill one major stumbling block for the economy and workers is the increase of temporary and transient jobs that are difficult to organize.
America’s economy was built on free and exploited labor. Congress must now pass the Employees Free Choice Act to protect the American labor tradition of organized workers.
Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
633 Pennsylvania Ave
5th Floor
Washington, DC 20004
Office: 202.689.1965
Fax: 202.689.1954
Cell: 773.230.3554
Monday, February 22, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
Avatar and Tarzan
Most Americans over 45-years old remember the movie Tarzan, King of the Apes. For those younger, Tarzan, the movie, was set in the jungles of Africa and falsely depicted natives as primitive and backward. That is, until baby Tarzan is raised by the natives and taught their social mores and cultural rituals. As Tarzan grows older he become “one of the natives” and eventually “king of the natives.” Such a scenario was not far fetched for the racist-tinged times of the 1950’s and 1960’s.
However, evidence that the United States of America is not “post-racial” may well be found in the racially and ethnically stereotypical movie, Avatar released in 2110. While Avatar shifts the motion picture paradigm brilliantly with respect to special affects the essential story line is: Good hearted Anglo soldier signs up to infiltrate native culture and convince them to vacate their homeland in order to permit imperialist nation to mine natural resources for national use. Mid-way through mission soldier is conflicted and “joins” natives, only to become their leader against super power.
Tarzan and Avatar are lamentably linked together by the cross of religious disrespect and cultural condescension.
For example, the opening scene of Avatar features highly charged soldiers being briefed by blond-haired, blue-eyed thunderously-testosteroned military commander who in a barrage of bigoted bursts refers the to indigenous natives as “savages…who shoot arrows.”
Such a reference is eerily similar to references by then president Andrew Jackson of Native Americans during the American historical era known as “Jacksonian Democracy” or “Manifest Destiny.” During the 1840’s and 1850’s United States Calvary soldiers were essentially given approval to “remove” Native Americans in order to secure land and the minerals (gold) underneath. In fact, the life of the indigenous peoples of the American west were so devalued that the phrase “an Indian’s life was not worth ‘one red cent’”.
The value placed on greed and military might over sharing and moral right in Avatar is based on the predicate of cultural disrespect. Equally shameful to the military commander’s bigotry is the highly educated civilian director of operations who—as many “liberal-minded” analyst do today—decries that, in spite of the natives’ rich cultural, ecological, spiritual, and moral society, “…we give them education, money, and a new place to live.” In a religious context, the director of operations’ Christian references of “Jesus Christ” belittles the holistic religious practices of the native people. In one scene he says: “…my God, these ‘people’ are primitive and worship trees…” Sound familiar to today’s American occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Sadly, far too many social commentators paternalistically view “gifts” of education and social programs to the denied and dispossessed as consideration for exploitative and imperialist actions.
Even the professorial character of Signori Weaver’s pursuit of scientific truths is negated by her acceptance of the might is right paradigm. She ignores the unrighteousness of the military mission only for her “scientific discoveries.”
In addition to the movie Tarzan, Avatar cuts and pastes from previous movies such as Dances with Wolves and The Last Samurai. In each, a nice White guy is anointed as king of the natives to save them. If we are to truly be the United States of America, popular culture in movies must reflect cross-cultural respect. Inclusion and a shared ethos must be the order of the day. Specifically, the Motion Picture Association should, not withstanding First Amendment rights, incentivize movie directors to at least base movies on the concept that, in the words of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, “difference does not mean deficiency.”
African Americans and most people of color in the United States are undervalued for their intelligence, culture, and world view.
If not, American society is doomed to the same fate of the “sky people” in Avatar.
Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
633 Pennsylvania Ave
5th Floor
Washington, DC 20004
Office: 202.689.1965
Fax: 202.689.1954
Cell: 773.230.3554
However, evidence that the United States of America is not “post-racial” may well be found in the racially and ethnically stereotypical movie, Avatar released in 2110. While Avatar shifts the motion picture paradigm brilliantly with respect to special affects the essential story line is: Good hearted Anglo soldier signs up to infiltrate native culture and convince them to vacate their homeland in order to permit imperialist nation to mine natural resources for national use. Mid-way through mission soldier is conflicted and “joins” natives, only to become their leader against super power.
Tarzan and Avatar are lamentably linked together by the cross of religious disrespect and cultural condescension.
For example, the opening scene of Avatar features highly charged soldiers being briefed by blond-haired, blue-eyed thunderously-testosteroned military commander who in a barrage of bigoted bursts refers the to indigenous natives as “savages…who shoot arrows.”
Such a reference is eerily similar to references by then president Andrew Jackson of Native Americans during the American historical era known as “Jacksonian Democracy” or “Manifest Destiny.” During the 1840’s and 1850’s United States Calvary soldiers were essentially given approval to “remove” Native Americans in order to secure land and the minerals (gold) underneath. In fact, the life of the indigenous peoples of the American west were so devalued that the phrase “an Indian’s life was not worth ‘one red cent’”.
The value placed on greed and military might over sharing and moral right in Avatar is based on the predicate of cultural disrespect. Equally shameful to the military commander’s bigotry is the highly educated civilian director of operations who—as many “liberal-minded” analyst do today—decries that, in spite of the natives’ rich cultural, ecological, spiritual, and moral society, “…we give them education, money, and a new place to live.” In a religious context, the director of operations’ Christian references of “Jesus Christ” belittles the holistic religious practices of the native people. In one scene he says: “…my God, these ‘people’ are primitive and worship trees…” Sound familiar to today’s American occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Sadly, far too many social commentators paternalistically view “gifts” of education and social programs to the denied and dispossessed as consideration for exploitative and imperialist actions.
Even the professorial character of Signori Weaver’s pursuit of scientific truths is negated by her acceptance of the might is right paradigm. She ignores the unrighteousness of the military mission only for her “scientific discoveries.”
In addition to the movie Tarzan, Avatar cuts and pastes from previous movies such as Dances with Wolves and The Last Samurai. In each, a nice White guy is anointed as king of the natives to save them. If we are to truly be the United States of America, popular culture in movies must reflect cross-cultural respect. Inclusion and a shared ethos must be the order of the day. Specifically, the Motion Picture Association should, not withstanding First Amendment rights, incentivize movie directors to at least base movies on the concept that, in the words of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, “difference does not mean deficiency.”
African Americans and most people of color in the United States are undervalued for their intelligence, culture, and world view.
If not, American society is doomed to the same fate of the “sky people” in Avatar.
Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
633 Pennsylvania Ave
5th Floor
Washington, DC 20004
Office: 202.689.1965
Fax: 202.689.1954
Cell: 773.230.3554
Monday, February 1, 2010
United State Senate Has False Fear of Filibuster
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
January 31-February 7, 2010
Last week, many of us watched with anxious anticipation the State of the Union Address by President Obama. The President opened with light-hearted recognition of recent Democratic political losses in Massachusetts, New Jersey, The Commonwealth of Virginia, and the The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The policy significance of the United States Senate race in Massachusetts was that the perceived balance of power in the Upper Chamber of Congress was in jeopardy. Why?
Unlike the United States House of Representatives which functions on a simple majority vote of the 435 members, the U.S. Senate operates on a completely different—and un-democratic—set of rules. For example, in the House bills are introduced and voted on by committees. If a bill is voted out of committee to the House floor, all members vote it upon with a simple majority vote. However, the down side of democracy in the House is that the majority party (Speaker of the House) can shut down how much of a role the minority party may play. Not the case is the Senate.
In fact, one Senator can halt the course of a particular bill under current rules. In addition, there are no time limits on how long a Senator can speak on an issue, which opens the door for an even larger issue.
Paradoxically, the most democratic and un-democratic practice of the U.S. Senate is the use of a filibuster. What is filibuster? How is the filibuster used? Should the use of the filibuster be prohibited? A review of American Government 101 is useful to discover answers.
A filibuster is a procedural tool used by legislators to slow down the passage of legislation or the confirmation of a nominee to a high position. Under a filibuster, a Senator may speak indefinitely until the other political party withdraws the bill or person nominated.
In its most negative sense, the 1940’s, 1950’s, and 1960’s saw racist southern—and northern—Senators filibuster civil rights legislation aimed at securing the right to vote and the use of public accommodations by people of color. In most cases, a legislator would read long books or even the comic section of papers until the other side relented. Blah, blah, blah was the order of the day.
The most positive use of the filibuster has come in slowing down Bush Administration judicial nominees with sorted records on racial issues.
In order to diminish the impact of the filibuster in the U. S. Senate a “super majority” rule was adopted to require 60 (of 100) votes to block a filibuster. Problem is: in order to countervail the un-democratic nature of frivolous filibuster the Senate engages in “fuzzy math” that erroneously permits politicians to think that 41 votes (thus, 59 votes on the other side) constitutes a majority. Not true.
I would like to see the majority party “call the hand” of the minority party when the filibuster is threatened. In other words, if the Republican Party currently wishes to filibuster health care reform by talking incessantly on the Senate floor, then let them do so. The American people would not look kindly on politicians puffing hot air while people die while being denied access and affordability to health care. Senators predicate such a wish on more spines.
My message to the United States Senate: Fear not the filibuster. Call the opposition’s bluff and let the voters decide what issues and Senators to support.
In linking leadership,
Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
633 Pennsylvania Ave
5th Floor
Washington, DC 20004
Office: 202.689.1965
Fax: 202.689.1954
Cell: 773.230.3554
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
January 31-February 7, 2010
Last week, many of us watched with anxious anticipation the State of the Union Address by President Obama. The President opened with light-hearted recognition of recent Democratic political losses in Massachusetts, New Jersey, The Commonwealth of Virginia, and the The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The policy significance of the United States Senate race in Massachusetts was that the perceived balance of power in the Upper Chamber of Congress was in jeopardy. Why?
Unlike the United States House of Representatives which functions on a simple majority vote of the 435 members, the U.S. Senate operates on a completely different—and un-democratic—set of rules. For example, in the House bills are introduced and voted on by committees. If a bill is voted out of committee to the House floor, all members vote it upon with a simple majority vote. However, the down side of democracy in the House is that the majority party (Speaker of the House) can shut down how much of a role the minority party may play. Not the case is the Senate.
In fact, one Senator can halt the course of a particular bill under current rules. In addition, there are no time limits on how long a Senator can speak on an issue, which opens the door for an even larger issue.
Paradoxically, the most democratic and un-democratic practice of the U.S. Senate is the use of a filibuster. What is filibuster? How is the filibuster used? Should the use of the filibuster be prohibited? A review of American Government 101 is useful to discover answers.
A filibuster is a procedural tool used by legislators to slow down the passage of legislation or the confirmation of a nominee to a high position. Under a filibuster, a Senator may speak indefinitely until the other political party withdraws the bill or person nominated.
In its most negative sense, the 1940’s, 1950’s, and 1960’s saw racist southern—and northern—Senators filibuster civil rights legislation aimed at securing the right to vote and the use of public accommodations by people of color. In most cases, a legislator would read long books or even the comic section of papers until the other side relented. Blah, blah, blah was the order of the day.
The most positive use of the filibuster has come in slowing down Bush Administration judicial nominees with sorted records on racial issues.
In order to diminish the impact of the filibuster in the U. S. Senate a “super majority” rule was adopted to require 60 (of 100) votes to block a filibuster. Problem is: in order to countervail the un-democratic nature of frivolous filibuster the Senate engages in “fuzzy math” that erroneously permits politicians to think that 41 votes (thus, 59 votes on the other side) constitutes a majority. Not true.
I would like to see the majority party “call the hand” of the minority party when the filibuster is threatened. In other words, if the Republican Party currently wishes to filibuster health care reform by talking incessantly on the Senate floor, then let them do so. The American people would not look kindly on politicians puffing hot air while people die while being denied access and affordability to health care. Senators predicate such a wish on more spines.
My message to the United States Senate: Fear not the filibuster. Call the opposition’s bluff and let the voters decide what issues and Senators to support.
In linking leadership,
Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
633 Pennsylvania Ave
5th Floor
Washington, DC 20004
Office: 202.689.1965
Fax: 202.689.1954
Cell: 773.230.3554
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
